CKNW Editorial
for September 6, 1999

Can we now get some sensible public discussion going on the question of refugees? The Reform Party, through statements calculated to play the racist card has had its say. The public has vented its spleen. And perhaps we can look at the issue soberly.

Canada has an obligation to take in refugees, if they so qualify. And that is a difficult question to tackle from the outset because so-called economic refugees do not qualify.

So let’s try to look through history and see just what a refugee is. First and foremost, with some notable exceptions like the Jewish exodus from Germany in thirties and the Hungarians in the fifties, the main motive of most refugees is, at least in part, economic. They are leaving desperate poverty no matter where they come from. However, a good many of them are also refugees for reasons which qualify them. To compound the problem, economic refugees from countries like China and Cuba will, if sent back, almost certainly then qualify as Convention refugees once the authorities get through with them. A very large part of the earth’s population would, if it could, transmogrify itself into Canada or the United States. Economic refugees no doubt they would be, but where does economic repression end and political oppression begin? That’s a question for Solomon and that’s the question Canada faces.

Canada and the United States are, in a sense, their own worst enemies but especially the United States, which has held itself out as a haven for, as the Statue of Liberty proclaimed, the “huddled masses” of the world. That, as a matter of policy has changed, but in the result both countries have ethnic communities – many of several generations standing – which are beacons of hope for the countries of origin of their communities. As American television beams its way into China, the lure of America, in the broadest sense, becomes very strong indeed.

Is there anyone listening to this program who would not, if they were a struggling Chinese family, out of sorts with the government, confined to having one child only, unable to publicly express their views, do everything possible to find asylum?

Before I move on – a word about freedom. It’s said that “these people” have never known freedom … in fact they’ve never known anything but repression so that’s what they’re used to. This is because we look at China as more than billion people who all look alike to us and who seem to accept their lot. Well, those who think like that should think again. The desire for freedom is a very deep emotion indeed and survives centuries of oppression. Re-read Wild Swans and see just how deep this feeling is in China.

Moreover, Canada has blotted its copybook – so has the United States. For in the Iron Curtain days, if you were a hockey player from Czechoslovakia you got into Canada first class and without a question. To this day, Cuban baseball players are welcomed with open arms even though in both cases the athletes had privileged lives at home. There are convenient exceptions made.

 For all of this, there is a very big problem. People who do not qualify as Convention refugees, that is to say people who don’t meet the UN standards, are getting into Canada. The boat people are a drop in the bucket and have permitted us to show our very worst side. What do we do?

First off, we have to raise this problem directly with the source of most of the migrants, China, if for no other reason than there is a huge humanitarian issue here. Boat people take their lives in their hands and by all reports are being badly exploited. And the Canadian public is entitled to see their government working on this issue on a nation to nation basis.

Secondly, we must shore up out refugee assessment system so it can work much more quickly. This means money and people.

Thirdly, we must put in place a barrier to those who don’t qualify. I suggest that each migrant have to demonstrate a prima facie case that he or she is a convention refugee. If that is not demonstrated, he or she goes into a refugee camp where the determination can be finally made in due course.

Now, one might say, this will simply mean hundreds of thousands of refugees to look after. I submit not. For awhile there would be a lot of interned refugees but this would quickly diminish as the word got out that thousands of refugee claimants were not allowed to go free instantly and, upon failing to establish their bona fides, were sent home. I think we all know that the refugee tom-tom works very effectively.

Finally, this is what we could do but I would be strongly opposed simply because I don’t think that the primary judicial decision should ever be final. But we could, if that’s what Canadians want, pass a statute perhaps using the “notwithstanding clause” of the Charter, saying that, unless a clear denial of natural justice be shown, the Immigration official’s decision be final. I emphasize that I would oppose such a move but it could be done.

Would this eliminate the problem? Of course not. As long as we’re a rich nation of 30 million, with substantial minority communities, across the ocean from 2 billion who covet our opportunities, we will always have a problem. But what it will do is severely discourage would be refugee claimants and that is an important first step.

Let me finally deal with the question of cost. Many people are wringing their hands over what this all costs us. Well, freedom and democracy are never cheap commodities. The alternative is cruelly to turn leaky ships back across the oceans with horrible human consequences. To do that we must pass legislation and deal with refugee claimants, as John Reynolds and his ilk would, as criminals. I don’t think, after reflection, that’s what Canadians want or would even tolerate.

The cost of behaving humanely and democratically is – and forgive me for using my personal cliché – the insurance premium we pay for the freedom we cherish. If we start dealing arbitrarily with refugee claimants, call them criminals and turn away their leaky vessels we become no better than the countries they flee.

Is this a new position for me?

No, it’s what I’ve been saying all along except it’s been very difficult to stand up for the rule of law and due process and get your message heard in the heat and hostility that’s been whipped up over the unconventional arrival on our shores of some 450 refugee claimants.

This problem has no absolute solution – but we can do things much better and we should.